This Essay argues that the Roberts Court has been a pivotal institutional player in destabilizing constitutional democracy. It has enabled states to freely pursue agendas that are authoritarian in nature. And because authoritarianism is contrary to core principles of the Constitution, the Roberts Court’s constitutional jurisprudence has no basis in the Constitution and must ultimately be rejected.
Instead of taking steps to block authoritarian legislation and promote a fair and open political process, the Court has issued rulings catalyzing and reinforcing the authoritarian impulses of the former Jim Crow states. The Roberts Court has engaged in judicial review reinforcing authoritarianism, thereby establishing a constitutional jurisprudence of anti-democracy.
"The Roberts Court’s Anti-Democracy Jurisprudence and the Reemergence of State Authoritarian Enclaves,"
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity: Vol. 12:
1, Article 6.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/jrge/vol12/iss1/6